SuccessFactors Jam unleashes the creativity, spontaneity, and teamwork to power your social learning, onboarding and other talent processes.

Jam makes sharing and finding relevant information and experts easier than ever. Jam’s remarkably simple video and screen capture lets everyone share his or her expertise. Jam also includes support for Microsoft Office documents and PDFs, allowing for discovery and commenting, even from your mobile phone or tablet. Additional features including polling, activity feeds, and public and private groups enable your employees to crowd source questions, discuss and debate ideas, keep processes on schedule, and drive innovation and learning throughout your company.

I took away several really interesting points, including the selection of “value chains” (as opposed to the more formal “job families”) as the pilot segment for workforce planning – what a great way to tie forecasts to the value that the workforce provides!

Also of note; the concept of workforce planning networks – beyond stakeholders and champions, who else in the organization will be affected/influenced by workforce planning and what impact will it have?

The idea came to fruition when one of the presenters discussed how their organization’s affinity groups were positive role models in supporting the execution of the workforce planning process. In many cases, affinity groups wouldn’t be a primary audience for workforce planning communications, yet, in this organization, they were seen as very helpful in suggesting the appropriate next steps for workforce planning.

As such, the presentation got me thinking about a modified “social network” for workforce planning – as part of change management, explicitly identifying the broader network of individuals and groups that may be touched by workforce planning.

This might include affinity groups, project teams, data analysts, strategic planners, HIPOs, and staff in leadership development programs, for example. Each group may be affected by workforce planning in a different way – some more directly than others – but it is worth considering how they might play a role in your workforce planning process or in ongoing integration with other activities around the firm.

1. Change within HR:
The first thing to remember is that change doesn’t happen if you just ask nicely.  People must be motivated to change.  When you’re talking particular behaviors at work, this means rewriting job descriptions and changing evaluations and rewards.  There will also be training involved.  This is fairly comprehensive, so most organizations build the capability in what we call a Center of Excellence (CoE).

A CoE is a small set of employees with specific skill sets who enable workforce planning for the entire organization.  They run the analytics, ask the tough questions, and in the process, train HR business partners over time.  This allows an organization to look at job descriptions, performance criteria, and rewards for around 2-4 people rather than the entire HR community.

Having a software system in place enables the CoE to have a broad reach within the organization as it automates the analytical component, ensures consistency of definitions, consistency of process, and will enable the CoE to train the HR business partners much more quickly.

2. Change in interactions with business managers:
Often, the introduction of workforce planning is one of the first real strategic conversations business managers have with HR partners (this, of course, is not always the case – just a general observation).  While the conversation has previously been around the current state of people and meeting certain targets, it now shifts to a theoretical vision of the future and translating that vision into human capital requirements.

Some managers aren’t comfortable having this dialogue so it is critical that the HR representative has a solid understanding of the strategy, can push back when further clarification is needed, and can facilitate decision-making.  It is also important to maximize the use of management’s time to avoid unnecessary or redundant tasks.  This is the best and quickest way to have workforce planning branded as a business initiative rather than “another HR program”.

I have found a good method for opening the door to conversations with managers.  Approach the manager and say, “I’d like to speak with you about your long-range planning so I can understand the workforce requirements necessary to enable you to execute.”  After all, workforce planning should be a part of strategic planning, and at its essence it’s a risk audit that ensures you have the right people in place to execute on business strategy.

The key here is to establish a process that works with and on the business and is flexible enough to meet varying needs across the organization.  (SuccessFactors has established a methodology based on its 30+ years of practice that you can see below.)

My tip for a successful change management process:
Before you get started with workforce planning, stop and think about the change on each of the groups involved and what communications need to be in place to facilitate awareness and buy-in.  Concentrating on the foundational elements will pave the way for a successful process.

SuccessFactors Workforce Planning Methodology

I was reminded of this when I was working with a client recently, developing a metrics scorecard for their organization.  We’d identified a number of metrics that we felt would be useful for the organization, the subsidiary of a larger parent company, to track.  We noticed, however, that some of the metrics were similar to metrics already being tracked by the parent company, though they were calculated a little bit differently.

“Should we just calculate the metrics for our scorecard using the same methodology as the parent company”, they asked?  Now it was my turn to play statistics professor.  “It depends”, I answered.  How were the numbers going to be used, both by the parent and the affiliate?  Was management going to be held accountable to specific targets, or were the measures being tracked to provide guidance and decision support to the organization’s leadership?  How important was it to be able to benchmark the results against other organizations? 

If there were different, and legitimate, differences in how the numbers would be used, there may be reason to calculate them differently.  I cautioned of course, that whenever you have two sets of numbers you need to be able to reconcile the two, and the onus to do so would undoubtedly fall on the affiliate, not the parent.  This obviously creates added complexity and risk of confusion.  Still, under some circumstances, it could be the right choice.

The example I gave for keeping two sets of numbers was around turnover.  This organization, like many, wrestled with whether or not to include certain types of terminations, like retirements, in their voluntary termination calculations.  Many managers argued that the retirement of their employees was something largely or entirely beyond their control (particularly true in countries or companies where there are mandatory ages set for retirement), and as such it should not be “counted against them”.  A debatable point to be sure, but certainly there are some terminations that even a good manager will have little power to prevent. 

However, when an organization is trying to monitor its workforce and plan for the future, it absolutely has to track all terminations, regardless of reason.  So the terminations of retirees, students returning to school, etc. absolutely need to be accounted for.

Again, the key here is identifying the purpose of the numbers – why are you tracking them in the first place?  If the aim is to assign accountability, you may calculate your metrics one way.  On the other hand, if you’re trying to understand the bigger picture for your organization, particularly if you want to  accurately benchmark yourself against other organizations, you might choose another calculation.  It’s all a matter of the broader context.

What’s the right answer?  “It depends”, of course.

A pay for performance culture is one where people receive monetary rewards based on the value they provide to the company.  The more value you provide, the more you are paid.   The assumption is people will provide more value if they are financially incented based on their contributions.   Another assumption is the company can accurately measure people’s performance contributions.

Adopting a pay for performance mindset, while generally a good idea, can over-simplify what business leaders truly want and what actually motivates employees.  To illustrate this, consider the following 4 pay for performance cultures in order of best to worst to somewhere in-between.

The best scenario:  performance without pay. Businesses don’t actually want to pay for performance.  What they ideally want is performance without having to pay.   But most employees are not willing to accept this proposition.  We rightfully expect to be paid for what we contribute.  Nevertheless, it is possible to inspire people to achieve high levels of performance without focusing on pay.  Volunteer organizations do this all the time.  There are a lot of things that motivate people.  The motivational value of pay varies depending on the type of job and employee, and business leaders who use pay as the sole tool for motivating employees risk adopting a very expensive and marginally effective leadership approach.

The worst scenario:   pay for poor performance. The worst case scenario for a business occurs when employees are rewarded for doing things that undermine company performance.  This occurs more often than companies would like to admit, particularly in companies whose managers have to comply with restrictive personnel policies, rules, and regulations.    Rewarding poor performance encourages counterproductive behavior and destroys the motivation of high performers.  High performers dislike it when they do not receive any sense of recognition or rewards for their contributions.  But they hate it when they see rewards going to poorer performing colleagues.

A lousy scenario:  performance only for pay. One of the problems with creating a direct link between pay and performance is some people will never feel they are getting paid enough.   No matter how much pay these people receive for doing something, over time they always seem to want more.  Payouts can quickly switch from being a reward to being an expectation.  Today’s financial bonus is tomorrow’s entitlement.  Once this happens, pay ceases to be a motivator and becomes a source of dissatisfaction.

The pragmatic scenario:  performance influences but does not completely determine pay. Research on productivity, fairness, and motivation indicates that there should be a positive relationship between how much people are paid and how much they contribute to the company.  But the relationship between pay and performance does not need to be perfect to be effective.  Many things influence pay levels beyond individual performance (e.g., overall company financials).   Conversely, pay is only one of many things that influence performance.  Companies should create a link between performance and pay, but should not overemphasize pay as the only reason why employees should seek to perform at higher levels.

Establishing links between pay and performance does tend to increase productivity.    But it is not just the promise of pay that drives the productivity.  When you link pay to performance, employees and managers get much more serious around defining what they mean by “performance”.   And clearly defining performance expectations drives all kinds of benefits for increasing workforce productivity, regardless of pay levels.

The conference chose to go much deeper into the topic of “people and culture” because HR leaders are so well positioned to initiate sweeping change across a business. The keynote panel on the morning of day one kicked off the new track and covered multiple issues that keep HR professionals awake at night.  Three senior level HR executives from customer organizations were on the panel as well as Oliver Marks and moderator Bill McNee.

Each of the panelists is making Enterprise 2.0 real in their companies by using collaborative technologies to recruit and retain employees.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) was one such customer on the panel.  They are a 180 year-old publishing and education company with a globally dispersed workforce.  The challenge they’re facing is one where they have to bring social to business in order to appeal to the way their customers, and employees, expect to communicate and get work done.

Two recommendations to keynote attendees looking to bring social collaboration into their business from Ciara Smyth, EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer for HMH were:

1) Start viral.

2) Trust your employees.

For companies looking to survive in a 2.0 world, business is now dependent on how quickly they can innovate new products and speak to a younger, tech-savvy audience. Being able to keep up with an iPad wielding, platform agnostic customer base is critical as business leaders seek to remain competitive in industries that have traditionally been slow to adapt to change. Are there any industries older than Facebook and Twitter NOT facing the same pressure?

The video from the Human Resources Meets Enterprise 2.0 and the Cloud panel can be found on the Enterprise 2.0 Conference website at http://tv.e2conf.com/ (you’ll need to register to view the videos).

Rubbish In = Rubbish Out = Waste of Time.  Not much we can do about it, right?

Wrong.

The biggest problem in dealing with Data Quality is the tendency to do nothing: “Rubbish Out” gives you the perfect opportunity for a focused Data Quality effort.

Waiting for a Business Case for Data Quality management to build itself is like never brushing your teeth and waiting for a tooth ache before going to the dentist. Perhaps a better approach is to learn how to brush your teeth and look out for decay before it is too late.

Do this, if like your teeth, you would like to take care of your data:

• Write-down each complaint you receive about data quality and say, “THANK-YOU.”
• Get the person to explain what they would achieve with good information in the same context.
• Work out who owns the data – the Data Owner is someone senior from the line of business (not IT). If you are lucky, there will be Data Owner appointed Data Steward(s) either by line of business or function or both. This probably means that your organisation is placing some of the required focus on Data Quality. If not, find the closest thing – Business Analyst / Functional Analyst / Reporting Specialist. Note the Data Steward is not the Data Owner, rather the Data Owner’s appointed “Bull Dog”.
• Do a cost benefit analysis by Data Owner. Easier said than done but this does not need to be 100% accurate.  Look for easy wins.  The benefits almost always outweigh those identified at the outset.
• Do nothing if the benefits don’t outweigh the cost, but don’t throw away your cost benefit analysis – the process needs to be reviewed and repeated.
• Send your Data Owner(s) the results – whatever the outcome.
• Set-up a meeting with them to plan actions.

Organisations need to treat intangible Information Assets like their Fixed Assets on the Balance Sheet. Nurture your data and you will be rewarded with more efficient and successful decision making efforts and easier business execution.

The economy is turning, and with it, investments in HR and WF Analytics and Planning.  Conferences are better attended compared to the past couple of years, which my highly tuned analytics skills tell me is a good trend.  But the bigger picture is that IT budget purse strings are being loosened, and in ways that free up internal resources:  http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101004-704380.html.   HR and workforce investments can now help HR professionals to focus on what has admittedly been a niche-y area within HR.  Workforce planning and analytics skills and practices are growing in demand, even ahead of any unanimously recognized economic recovery (almost there…where are the jobs?!?).

Workforce Planning and Analytics create business value and bolster business strategy.  Given the titles of presentations, the conversations between conference delegates, and the overall language coming from HR and non-HR professionals, HR is clearly more focused on strategic, operational, and financial business outcomes.  I attribute much of this to workforce analytics and planning; now, not only is HR gaining support in this space in terms of investment, it is also strengthening its credibility and strategic impact on the business it serves.  

Firms’ Analytics and Planning capabilities can mature quickly.  What we have historically seen as evolutions in organizations’ HR capabilities in these areas, sometimes taking years, is no longer necessarily the norm.  Comcast is one example of a company presenting their story of accelerating the pace of change, “getting good at” workforce reporting/analytics and driving impactful results quickly.   A common theme: the critical success factor is engagement and support from business executives, as well as strong leadership of the function. 

The Foundation is set for Strategic Workforce Planning.  It has commonly been a relatively linear process for HR to 1) get some data, 2) make sure it’s clean, 3) look at the history, 4) understand why things happen and 5) begin to get predictive with that knowledge.  After that, it would take a while to then 6) look ahead and model workforce availability against business need.  Practically speaking, HR went through a long process, taking several years, to get to workforce planning:  obtaining data and cleaning it up, focusing on reporting quality, then start and grow analytics improvements, before beginning workforce planning.  

However, I’m seeing more companies turn that maturity model on its head.  The practice of strategic workforce planning is becoming both more foundational and more sophisticated.  I have heard several stories from people who have successfully practiced workforce planning on Excel files, using a pilot approach that is less dependent on rock-solid systems and data and more reliant on strong capabilities, relationships, and organizational readiness.  Some firms even have what they consider beginner-level reporting and analytics with pretty advanced workforce planning processes.  This means to me that 1) while great analytics capability absolutely strengthens workforce planning, it’s not a requirement to get started, making inertia less of a risk to workforce planning than ever before. 

Client/vendor services and relationships are of critical importance in Analytics and Planning.   My company, SuccessFactors, provides workforce analytics and planning software as a service  – “in the cloud.”   In addition to our industry-leading workforce planning and analytics experience and expertise, we also deliver real empathy and familial commiseration to our clients.  I frequently hear of newcomers’ admiration of that genuine care – they want us to put them on cloud nine, too.   And SuccessFactors is investing significantly to emphasize these areas even more to enable us to grow while driving our clients’ success.   All of these lead me to believe that, while having bulletproof, ever-more innovative products is paramount, we’re powerfully differentiating ourselves in how we take care of our “members.”   We are on their team, we don’t succeed if they don’t succeed; and their knowledge of our commitment will bring long-term success for both sides of the relationship.

A study of 157 companies utilizing SuccessFactors for strategy execution (not just to optimize a process) found users of the solutions experienced average revenue growth of 15.4% over a 12 month period (compared to an average industry growth of 10.6%).

Sure, some of this was due to efficiency gains around a process (short-term). But the key was the ability to get better execution from the workforce through strategy alignment and clear identification of top performers. Top performers in a company are shown to be 3x more productive so why aren’t we focused on attracting, developing and retaining top performers instead of “streamlining transaction times” and “reducing manual transaction” – isn’t that HR 1.0?

Small and medium sized businesses stand to benefit the most by focusing on their workforce because they are growing and expanding at a higher rate than large businesses and have greater demand for skilled workers. Milan P. Yager, NAPEO executive vice president says that if small business loses even one seasoned knowledge worker it affects them competitively. He says that “these business owners want to ensure that seasoned workers convey their knowledge, or even continue working longer if possible.”

Yet, 90% of the companies I speak with claim their reason for evaluating a system is “the current process is cumbersome, people don’t like doing it, too much time is being spent, it is one of the last processes left to automate”.  Really?  Is that strategic?  Do you want a seat at the executive table? Then how about putting a system in place to help you analyze how well your hires perform, the characteristics of a top performer and who is the best person for a project or new role? On average the cost of a bad hire is equal to the annual salary of that employee. The cost of losing a top performer is at least 1.5x that employee’s salary.

Close to 24 months ago when the economy was in free fall, a top 3 management consulting company surveyed over 500 companies to find out if the SuccessFactors Business Execution software had made an actual business impact or whether the software was purely delivering a cost savings from bringing HR processes online. The business impact turned out to be very real because the right information was captured and visible for making strategic workforce decisions. A 40% increase in time spent on strategic priorities doesn’t come from completing reviews on time. A 67% increase in project completion is the result of understanding your talent and putting the right talent on the right projects. Check out the study for your self – http://www.successfactors.com/docs/sf_guide_MovingMountains_r5.pdf .

Those of you in human resources who are taking a strategic approach to your human capital are more than likely awarded more funding from your executives. Those focused on performing reviews annually online and trying to reduce costs by automating a process are most likely watching your budgets dwindle faster than the cost savings you are trying to produce. Come on – think strategically. Enough said!

What is more important of course is to understand what drives individuals commitment or engagement levels. We know that understanding how what you do on a daily basis matters to the company and your customers is a key factor. What if you could get instant feedback on how you’re doing. I mean instant like in sports when people applaud or buh every move.

I just got back from a business trip to China and at the new airport in Beijing when going through customs you get the opportunity to provide instant feedback to the passport officer on duty. Talk about taking this seriously empowering the customer to provide instant feedback and the company in this case the government of China to take instant action to resolve any immediate issues as well constantly learn how to improve and become better.

On a side note if you’ve been through Heathrow lately I’m sure you understand and sympathize with me when I say that we all would want a way to provide feedback and help them improve as well. Happy travels!